JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Mr. Rohit Rao, complainant was the registered owner of the truck which was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Limited for the period covering from 30.5.2008 to 29.5.2009. The truck was stolen on the night intervening 2-3rd June, 2008. FIR was lodged with the police. However, before the police, one Rakesh Kumar claimed to be owner of the vehicle on the basis of some transaction of transfer that was stated to have taken place about three months back. The claim was lodged with the police by Rohit Rao, the previous owner. 2. The District Forum granted compensation to the petitioner. However, the State Commission reversed the order and dismissed the claim on the ground that Mr. Rohit Rao did not have the insurable interest at the time of theft. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that Mr. Rakesh Kumar was not the owner of the truck. As a matter of fact, he was acting as Special Power of Attorney. He has invited our attention towards the Special Power of Attorney, which was not produced before the lower court. This is an additional evidence which we are bound to ignore the same. Again, the Special Power of Attorney does not bear any date. Suck like evidence can be created at any time. Moreover, a bare reading of Special Power of Attorney clearly goes to show that the all the powers of the owner were given to Mr. Rakesh Kumar. 4. We have also perused the FIR which brings the cat out of the bag. The FIR clearly, specifically and unequivocally mentions that he had purchased the truck from Mr. Rohit Rao for a consideration of Rs.2 lakh as the model of the truck pertains to the year 1995. He further stated that he had paid the entire amount to Mr. Rohit Rao. It is thus clear that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands. The inexorable truth is that the truth has annoying habit of being not staying suppressed for too long. Lies are lies and nothing would change them to the status of truth. Neither Mr. Rohit Rao nor Rakesh Kumar had the insurable interest when the theft took place. 5. The revision petition is meritless and the same is dismissed. | 
